§ 20.£ 28,386, to complete the sum for Law Charges.
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he desired to call attention to the extraordinary delay which had occurred in taking proceedings against persons other than Jabez Balfour who were connected with the Liberator frauds. There was no failure which had caused such widespread ruin as the failure of the Balfour Group. The failure of the parent Company was known in September, 1892. That was nearly two years ago, and one by one afterwards the other Companies which were started by Mr. Jabez Balfour failed. Loss and sufferings which were almost unparalleled had followed. Ever since he had ventured to ask questions in the House on the subject he had been inundated with letters from all parts of the country written by persons who had suffered in the frauds. Most of these persons belonged to the middle class and working class, and were Nonconformists, and chiefly supporters of the present Government. The fact of their writing to him showed the intense interest that was felt in the subject.
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! The hon. Gentleman can only call attention to the delay on this Vote. He cannot go into the merits of the case.
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he did not intend to go into the merits of the case. He was merely pointing out the general interest that was aroused in the matter, as the justification for his intervention. There was a full inquiry by the Official Receiver, and all the information which could be got was in the hands of the Law Officers fully 10 months ago, late in October, 1893. Ever since then the Government had been pressed in the matter, but no action had been taken. He could, of course, understand how anxious the Law Officers were that the principal author should be arrested before proceedings were taken against others involved in the disasters. The House 79 could not but think that there had been a want of alertness on the part of the authorities in respect to the escape of Balfour himself, though it was a matter of congratulation that the announcement had been made in the House that evening that one of the Federal Courts of the Argentine Republic had pronounced in favour of his extradition, and that there was some prospect of his being brought to this country. It was, however, with the fellow-directors of Jabez Balfour that he was now chiefly concerned; and he repeated that it was extraordinary that 10 months were allowed to elapse without anything being done, though the Official Receiver in his Report had declared that the last three or four balance-sheets of the Company were false, and were issued by the Board to deceive and mislead those who had invested their money in the Company. He had asked several questions on the subject, but the answers were unsatisfactory. On the 25th of May the hon. Member for Preston asked a question as to how long it was since the Official Receiver's Report had been presented, and whether further proceedings had been decided on. The first question was replied to; with regard to the second question, it was said that it would not be for the public benefit that anything should be made known. That was an answer which he ventured to say should never have been made in the House merely to shirk a disagreeable question—merely to put off dealing with a question; and was an answer that should only be made when there was the sincerest conviction that it was indeed for the public benefit that no statement should be made. It was impossible for the House to believe that a statement by the Law Officers of the Crown that a prosecution was to be instituted would be injurious to justice by warning incriminated persons to escape; for escape those persons could not under any circumstances, if ordinary diligence were exercised. He believed that if the Public Prosecutor had done his duty promptly Jabez Balfour would never have been allowed to escape from this country. He could not but think that, if the authorities had made up their minds and acted properly, there could never have been any danger of the persons incriminated escaping. Again, on the 31st of May he (Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett) 80 asked whether all the details had not been given to the Public Prosecutor six months before, and whether any action would be taken? The President of the Board of Trade, to whom the question was addressed, gave what he would venture to describe as a misleading answer. The right hon. Gentleman said the documents in the case were handed in from the 30th of October to the 25th of April. The essential documents—the documents showing fraud, if there was fraud—had been handed in in October. Some unimportant papers might have been handed in since October, 1893; but the materials and groundwork for a prosecution were then in the hands of the Public Prosecutor, and at the service of the Attorney General. On the 11th of July he asked another question, whether it was intended to take proceedings against persons other than Mr. Jabez Balfour? The Attorney General said that it was not in the interest of justice that any statement should be made; and, in reply to a further question, the hon. and learned Gentleman said— much to the amusement of the House—that it was in his predecessor's time that the papers were handed in, and that his directions were being acted on. If the directions of the hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor had been acted on, the only action was inaction. On the 13th of July he asked another question, and then the Attorney General gave one of the most extraordinary answers ever heard in the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the question had been informally laid before the Attorney General at the end of January, and again in April. He should like to know what "informally" meant. Important documents disclosing what most people believed to be tremendous frauds were before the Public Prosecutor in October, 1893, and yet the Attorney General stated that the question was only brought before his predecessor at the end of January; and that no documents had been laid before the Law Officers as such. What did that mean? On the 18th of July he appealed for information to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the right hon. Gentleman treated the matter in the most cavalier style. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred him to the Foreign Office, and to the Attorney General, in happy 81 oblivion of the fact, that all efforts to urge the Attorney General into action had failed. Being further pressed, the right hon. Gentleman said it was impossible to extract information from him which he did not possess. So that the Heads of the Government apparently had neither studied this question, nor decided to take any action. He now asked once more, Was it intended to take proceedings against those supposed to be responsible for these gigantic frauds other than Jabez Balfour? He wished now to ask whether the Law Officers intended to take proceedings against the other persons he had indicated. If they did, why had not the proceedings been taken before this? A considerable number of persons were involved. Of the Directors of these Companies who were responsible for their management, there were from 30 to 40. The total of the losses by the frauds had been about £10,000,000 sterling, and all these losses had fallen on a class of people who were the least able to bear them. He had received a letter that, morning from a small tradesman who had put the whole of his savings— amounting to —2,000—from time to time into the Companies under the direction of Jabez Balfour. Now, having lost, every penny he possessed, he was obliged, at the age of 60, to go to work again, and try and accumulate something for the future. This was only a typical case out of thousands, and what every one was anxious to know was why no steps had been taken by the Government in the matter. He had not pressed the Government as to why steps were not taken to prevent Jabez Balfour leaving the country; but he would press them to say why they had not taken steps against, these minor offenders, but still most responsible, in the conduct of these most improperly-managed Companies. He thought the Committee would admit that this was a case he was justified in bringing before it. The greatest possible interest was felt in the matter, and he trusted they would hear from the Law Officers that there would be no further delay in dealing with the case.
§ SIR J. RIGBYsaid, he was afraid that he should not be able to give the hon. Gentleman the full satisfaction he 82 wished to obtain in reference to this subject. It was clear that the hon. Gentleman did not understand the difference between the responsibility that attached to the Attorney General in such a matter as this and that of the Law Officers of the Crown. The only person ultimately responsible for taking action in cases of this kind was the Attorney General, and although he might consult his colleague, the Solicitor General had nothing whatever to do with directing prosecutions at all. Papers in such cases were never laid before the Law Officers of the Crown, and the Attorney General alone was responsible. The hon. Gentleman had made merry, not for the first time, at his expense in connection with this case. All he could say was that he knew no more than the hon. Gentleman himself what communications had been made in relation to the matter to his predecessor in Office, and it was no part of his business to give the Attorney General any information with regard to such communications. Therefore, that conduct on his part, which appeared so laughable to the hon. Gentleman, was merely the result of his acting according to the ordinary practice. The matter was first brought to the notice of his predecessor in January. It was impossible at, that time to have brought the case before his predecessor with a view to getting a decision from him in respect of it. The Papers were immensely voluminous, and to study them completely would occupy the time not only of the Attorney General, who had other things to do, but of several of the most careful and most experienced counsel, and that time had been given to them. He did not believe it would have been possible to have brought anything like a primâ facie case before the Attorney General in January, but, nevertheless, all parties were so anxious to know what might be done, that informally the matter was brought before his predecessor at that, time. If it had been brought before him formally, he would not have had the means of knowing in what way he was to decide. Late in April—on the 27th, he believed—when there was a fuller knowledge of the circumstances, the matter was brought formally before the then Attorney General. On that occasion he (Sir J. Rigby) knew nothing of it, and it was no part of his business to 83 know anything about it, but what information he possessed he had learned by inquiry in May or June. Of course, it was easy to say that a great number of respectable people had been sufferers by these transactions. Unhappily that was so, and very great misery had been occasioned by the maladministration of these different Companies, but it was a very different thing to say that and to bring home by legal evidence a criminal charge against the persons who had been at the head of those Companies. They had learnt that to their cost already. It was as dangerous to be premature in making an attack of that kind as it was to be too late. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that an assurance that it was not to the public interest that information should be made known should not be used for the purpose of shirking responsibility, and he ventured to say that the insinuation that it had been so used ought not to have been made, unless the hon. Gentleman had better knowledge than he possessed upon which to found it. It was patent to all those who were consulted professionally and who were in possession of the exact facts of the case that a prosecution might be more effectually instituted if they could put into the dock the man who had been described by the hon. Gentleman as the principal author of these frauds. If no case could be made against him, it would be difficult, he would not say impossible, to make a case against those who were, or might, be, responsible in the secondary degree. However that might be—and he did not say that that was not one of the considerations—his predecessor in the latter part of April came to the conclusion that, in the interests of justice and not in order to shirk responsibility, or from any of those motives so kindly suggested by the hon. Gentleman—
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTI never suggested or insinuated motives. There are many painful suspicious current among the public outside, to which I have not even referred. The only statement which I made was that the plea of the public interest should not be lightly put forward as an excuse for withholding information.
§ SIR J. RIGBYsaid, he understood that complaint had been made by the hon. Gentleman that he had put forward that plea as an excuse for not giving in 84 formation. At any rate, after the hon. Gentleman's explanation he should know in the future that if he (Sir J. Rigby) made that statement again he might expect to have it allowed that he did so under a grave sense of responsibility, and that the assertion was not made with any idea of shirking responsibility or cloaking want of energy or want of investigation on the part of the authorities. The statement he had previously made, that it was not to the public interest that he should explain what had been done in the case, was made under a grave sense of responsibility. Whether the hon. Member was satisfied or not, that was still the only answer he could properly give. He had already told the House that at the end of April his predecessor came to a certain conclusion, one point of which was that prosecutions were not to be immediately brought forward. When he succeeded to the office of Attorney General he felt it his duty to inquire into the matter personally, and to take the opinion of those who had been engaged in going through the vast mass of facts necessary to a prosecution; and he now stated again on his own responsibility—without in the least attempting to shield himself behind his predecessor—that it was not to the public interest that the Government should say what, they would do or would not do in the matter. That there had been any kind of negligence, want of investigation or careful consideration in the case, and still less any attempt to shirk responsibility, he absolutely and emphatically denied. It was not to the public interest that any further explanation should be made at the present time.
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he was perfectly willing to accept the statement of the Attorney General that he had acted in the manner which he believed was best for the public interest. But he ventured to say that the general opinion would be, when the reply of the hon. and learned Gentleman came to be read, that he had not given any adequate or satisfactory reason for the extraordinary delay that had occurred in taking action in the case. Ten months ago the main facts, as embodied in the Report of the Official Receiver, were known to the public. The facts, therefore, must have been before the Law Officers of the Crown for over 85 eight months, and, in spite of what the Attorney General had said, doubtless with great force and conviction, he did not think the delay in taking action had been fully and properly explained. He believed that much stronger reasons for the delay would be demanded by the public and by Parliament if the offenders in the case should ultimately escape justice.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 21. £3,945, to complete the sum for Crofters' Commission.
§ MR. WEIRsaid, he hoped to get some information from the Secretary for Scotland as to the basis upon which fair rents were fixed by the Crofter Commissioners. He had on various occasions attempted to get information on this subject, but without success. He hoped they would be more successful to-night. The people in the Highlands ought to know on what basis they were rented. On the Island of Lewis, on Lady Matheson's estate, in 208 cases the old rent was £591 9s. 5d., and the fair-rents fixed by the Commissioners were £392 18s. Arrears had been reduced from £4,863 8s. 11d. to £1,194 12s. In individual cases rents had been reduced from £4 3s. to £2, from £4 10s. to £3 12s., from £3 12s. to £3 6s., and so on. There was nothing to show on what basis this was done. Some time ago he had visited two crofts. The old rent of each was £26. Well, the Commissioners decided that the rent of one should be £10, and the rent of the other £16. He was assured that these crofts were very much alike, and the man who had had his rent reduced to £16 only said, "Why should my neighbour have his rent reduced to £10—£6 more than mine? What reason is there for this?" He (Mr. Weir) hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland would give them some reason for these extraordinary differences. He should like to refer to the case of a man named John Mackenzie, of Lochalsh, Ross-shire, who appealed against the Crofter Commission in December, 1891. His rent had been £8, and it was reduced to £4, and the £48 of arrears were reduced to £12, to be paid in three instalments of £4 each. Well, it seemed that the 86 county rate collector was entitled to assess on the whole rent, but if the man disputed it he had to deposit the whole rate. The Secretary for Scotland could not be aware of the unfortunate position in which such proceedings placed these poor people. To lodge the whole rate was a very serious matter. It might mean selling the only cow or the only sheep or two sheep the man possessed. These men had not sovereigns and half-sovereigns to lodge with the county collector. Moreover, it was very hard that these appeals should stand over for years. It was necessary that all the Commissioners should be present during appeal cases. On the 20th of April this year he received a communication from the Crofters' Commission intimating that, owing to the illness they all regretted of Sheriff Brand, the Court had not been able to take up the consideration of the cases requiring the attention of the three Commissioners as an Appeal Court. He was glad Sheriff Brand was better, but it appeared to him that the Secretary for Scotland worked Sheriff Brand far too hard. He was the principal Commissioner at a salary of £1,200, he was also Chairman of the Deer Forest Commission, and he received —700 from the Consolidated Fund as Sheriff of Ayr. It appeared to him that this unfortunate man was simply being slaved to death. His large income might be some consolation to him, but it was no consolation to the people for whom the work had to be done. It would be interesting to know who attended to his duties as Sheriff of Ayr, and who paid the person who attended to these duties while Sheriff Brand was wandering all over the Highlands. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would tell the House what number of the 682 appeals recently existing had been cleared off. He wished an explanation of the sum of £100 paid as remuneration to Sheriff clerks. He failed to see any number of Scottish or Highland Members in the House, and therefore he would refrain from making a Motion, hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give a satisfactory account of the Commission.
§ DR. CLARKsaid, that he was glad to say that the Crofters' Commission was being able to do its work, and that large arrears had been wiped off. The Chair 87 man had done his work remarkably well, but he (Dr. Clark) hoped that before long they would abolish Sheriffs altogether. In his spare time he could have been acting as advocate. Instead of that he was acting as Chairman of this Commission. He (Dr. Clark) did not object to his salary, but he objected to the character of the Sub-Commissioners, who were of the same class as the Commissioners. To send to the Highlands a Sheriff, a factor, and a large farmer, was a course which ought not to have been taken. On the whole, the Commissioners had done their duty fairly well, and during the last two or three years some good work had been accomplished by the Sub-Commissioners and valuers. But he did not altogether approve of the principle which had been acted upon in appointing the Sub-Commissioners and valuers. Large farmers and factors had generally been chosen for the posts, and he would suggest that there were numbers of small farmers of the crofter class and dealers in cattle who knew the various counties well, and who would command the confidence of the crofters much more readily than those actually appointed.
§ SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, he was quite certain that much of what his hon. Friend had said would appeal to the judgment and good sense of almost every one in the Highlands, and if the hon. Member for Ross-shire took a Division in order to reduce the salary of the Crofters' Commission, on the ground that it did not command confidence in the Highlands, he would not carry the House with him. While Sheriff Brand had just now undoubtedly too much to do, every one who knew the difficulty of the work would be very unwilling, indeed, that he should cease to take part in it. As Chairman of the Crofters'Commission he had secured confidence in the Highlands not only among the tenants but also among the landlords, many of whom were now feeling that their relations with their tenantry had never been so satisfactory. The tenants felt, too, that their cases had been fully inquired into. Their rents had been reduced, and arrears had been cancelled. The way in which he presided over the Crofters' Commission convinced the Government that it was desirable to place him at the head of the Highland Commission. For that he did 88 not receive five guineas a day, as had been suggested, but he had only the ordinary travelling allowances. Sheriff Brand had had a terrible struggle, and in his efforts to give the invaluable assistance of his special knowledge of the Highlands his health had suffered greatly. But by the middle of next month his duties in connection with the survey of the Highlands would have been brought to the close, and then there would only remain the preparation of the Report. The only serious drawback was the one referred to by his hon. Friend, the delay in disposing of appeals, but he could reassure the Committee on that point, for when Sheriff Brand was discharged from the Land Commission duties he would soon dispose of the 393 cases which stood on the list on the 30th of June last. The current work of the Commission in fixing rents was being carried on with celerity, and he believed there never was a Judicial Body which had more completely fulfilled the purposes for which it was created or more completely commanded public confidence.
§ SIR G. TREVELYANThat goes to the clerks themselves for work actually done.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon, &c.)said, some arrangement was made by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of the present year that an official of this Commission should give evidence as to its work before the Welsh Land Commission, because that work had been done so well as to create a sincere desire that the Welsh Commission should be informed how it had been carried on. Accordingly, Sir Colin Moncrieff was deputed to give the evidence for the Crofters' Commission. But, as a matter of fact, he knew nothing of the subject personally, he was not a Commissioner, and he had to get his information secondhand. He had been assured by some of the Scotch Members that the evidence thus given was not at all reliable, and he therefore trusted that Sheriff Brand would be directed to give evidence, and an arrangement had accordingly been made that it should be passed pro formâ, and Report taken early the next evening, so that the matter might be fully discussed. This was agreed to with a view to finishing Committee of Supply that 89 night and enabling the Prorogation to take place on Friday.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONDoes the right hon. Gentleman propose to take to-night the Report of Supply voted on Saturday?
§ SIR W. HARCOURTYes, so far as the Votes are unopposed. If any require further discussion they will be postponed.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONIf I mention one or two Votes, will the right hon. Gentleman postpone them?
§ SIR W. HARCOURTI would rather that the hon. Member mentioned one than two.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONI am afraid that I shall have to mention three.
§ SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, it was intended that both Sheriff Brand and the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire should attend.
§ Vote agreed to.